ACLU President Retains Convicted Child Endangerment Aide?

Trackback URL for this entry:http://haloscan.com/tb/maggiesnotebook/1827343802744531548

Where is the main stream press on this issue?

The 16-year President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Nadine Strossen, appears to continue to retain convicted felon Steven C. Cunningham as her Chief Aide.

Some background: Steven C. Cunningham was convicted of the murky charge of Child Endangerment in the State of New Jersey. What is child endangerment? Did he fail to buckle a child’s seatbelt? Did he leave a small child at home, unattended? Did he go shopping with a child and let the child wander away? Did he allow a child to assault another child – endangering the assaulted? Did he let a child play with a medicine bottle?

No, that’s not what he did. He had three online chats with a boy that he believed was 12 years old, but was actually a police officer. According to charges filed, the phone calls were lewdly graphic and he attempted to meet “the child” somewhere. Cunningham was permanently disbarred in the State of New Jersey, but it appears that he is still licensed to practice in the State of New York and continues in the position of Chief Aide to ACLU President Nadine Strossen.

Since Strossen’s office will not confirm or deny Cunningham’s important position as her Chief Aide, why do I think he is still, indeed, with the ACLU? Here’s why: A search of New York State Unified Court System eCourts site confirms that Steven Christie Cunningham is licensed to practice in New York. Is Steven Christie Cunningham the same convicted Steven C. Cunningham? I think so. After this morning’s “no comment” from Strossen’s office, I called the phone number for Steven Christie Cunningham given on eCourts website. That call was answered by the New York Law School voicemail. When I selected Cunningham’s name from the list offered, the call was answered by Nadine Strossen’s office – the same young man who took my first call this a.m. and refused comment.

So much for the ACLU’s interest in your civil liberties or mine…our right to know if a man convicted of child endangerment is an integral part of the ACLU daily operations.

As I said in a previous post:

Now, if the Chief Aide or Executive Assistant to the CEO of Wal-Mart was convicted of Cunningham’s charges, we would know about it. Suppose a high-ranking assistant on Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s staff was so convicted – we’d know about it. What if a person of influence within Dr. James Dobson’s organization was convicted of child endangerment – we know we would know about it – not only from the MSM but Wal-Mart, Dr. Laura and Dr. Dobson would be called upon to explain how this abomination could possibly happen right under their noses. From the ACLU we hear nothing – at least that I can find.

As I have said in previous posts, Nadine Strossen did not commit a Child Endangerment crime. Nevertheless, the ACLU is becoming infamous for their defense of the right to access child pornography. Strossen is the author of Defending Pornography. Pornography doesn’t necessarily mean “child” pornography but the ACLU’s defense of The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) clearly cannot be explained away as a civil right. How do you defend the right of men to “talk” about and “write” about sexually preying on young boys, because they are only “talking” or only “writing” about it, when you fully know, but refuse to acknowledge, that children have been damaged by NAMBLA.